The day-to-day, blow-by-blow account of David v Goliath, in which the good little guy (social enterprise, private and institutional investment, best practise, third sector and localism) wins. Taking the power back from big bad Government and effecting local solutions through community action. Think social justice. On Red Bull. Eventually.
"The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need a functioning society around them to sustain their position. Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable. The evidence from history and from around the modern world is unequivocal: there comes a point when inequality spirals into economic dysfunction for the whole society, and when it does, even the rich pay a steep price."
JOSEPH STEIGLITZ
Report looks at the specific impact that explosive weapons have on women.
Over the last few years, concern over the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has increased because of the severe harm caused to civilians and the wider community.
However, the debate has so far not sufficiently highlighted the specific impact that explosive weapons have on women.
A new report by Reaching Critical Will (RCW), ‘Women and Explosive Weapons’, aims to draw attention to some of the unique impacts on women that explosive weapons have when used in populated areas.
We are talking here about bombs, cluster munitions, grenades, improvised explosive devices (IED), mines, missiles, mortars, and rockets, which use explosive force to affect an area around the point of detonation, usually through the effects of blast and fragmentation.
And according to data gathered by NGOs, between 80 and 90 per cent of the people injured or killed in incidents where explosive weapons are used in populated areas are civilians.
The report is part of Reaching Critical Will’s attempt to highlight the impact of weapons on women and the importance of strengthening a gender perspective in disarmament and arms control in order to ensure inclusive security – and prevent human suffering.
How is gender relevant for disarmament and arms control?
Ideas about gender affect the way people and societies view weapons, war and militarism.
Considering gender can help in developing deeper understandings of “gun cultures,” armament policies, or obstacles to disarmament.
It can also help determine appropriate policy or budgetary responses to particular challenges.
For example, there is a strong correlation between carrying guns and notions of masculinity.
Inside and outside of armed conflict, so-called “gun culture” is overwhelmingly associated with cultural norms of masculinity, including men as protectors and as warriors.
Armed conflict tends to exacerbate views about what qualifies as masculine behaviour: group pressure usually amplifies men’s aggressiveness and inclination to treat women as inferior.
Armed men perpetrate sexual violence at gunpoint against women and girls with impunity, most famously in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but also in a number of countries that are not necessarily at conflict.
Nuclear weapons likewise afford a sense of masculine strength.
Possessing and brandishing an extraordinarily destructive capacity is a form of dominance associated with masculine warriors (nuclear weapons possessors are sometimes referred to as the “big boys”).
After India’s 1998 nuclear weapon tests, for example, a Hindu nationalist leader explained, “We had to prove that we are not eunuchs.”
When governments act as though their power and security can only be guaranteed by a nuclear arsenal, they create a context in which nuclear weapons become the ultimate necessity for, and symbol of, state security.
And when nuclear-armed states then work hard to ensure that other countries do not obtain nuclear weapons, they are perceived as subordinating and emasculating others.
Gender analysis can also help us understand how weapons are used – and against whom and why. This in turn can help inform policies and programmes that specifically address these challenges.
Irresponsible transfers of weaponry, munitions, armaments, and related equipment across borders have resulted in acts of gender-based violence (GBV) perpetrated by both state and non-state actors.
Thus in the recent negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), civil society organisations and like-minded governments worked together to ensure that the treaty included a legally-binding provision on preventing armed gender-based violence.
‘Women and Explosive Weapons’ also argues that it is important to ensure that women affected by the use of explosive weapons receive the same assistance and legal protection as men, and that they are seen as active agents of change rather than only as victims.
The report also briefly describes explosive weapons and the legal tools available to assess their use, focusing in particular on legal documents that support greater inclusion of gender analysis and women’s participation.
The second part gives an overview on how explosive weapons specifically affect women and why a gendered analysis of the impact of explosive weapons use in populated areas is needed.
The report calls on governments to recognise that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas causes severe humanitarian problems, requiring the development of stronger and more explicit international standards, restrictions, and prohibitions.
Reaching Critical Will is the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s disarmament programme.
The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) was founded in April 1915, in The Hague, Netherlands, by some 1300 women from Europe and North America.
Women from countries at war against each other and from neutral ones, who came together at a Congress of Women to protest the killing and destruction of the war raging in Europe at the time.
The widespread availability of weapons has been a main concern for WILPF since its founding.
WILPF has actively been working towards a strong international Arms Trade Treaty with an extra focus on prohibiting a weapons transfer when there is a risk of them being used to conduct gender based violence since 2006.
On 2 April 2013 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which prohibits the sale of arms if there is a risk that the weapons could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.
The treaty was adopted with the yes-no-abstain vote 154-3-23.
It was the first treaty that recognised the link between gender-based violence and the international arms trade.
first published in Women's Views on the News
Letter to:
Theresa May, British Home Secretary
Every year, hundreds of women who come to this country to seek safety from persecution are being detained in Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire. Research by Women for Refugee Women shows that the majority of these women say they have experienced rape, sexual violence and torture in their home countries.
The impact of detention on women is devastating. Many become depressed and suicidal. These women have not committed any crime, and yet they are being locked up indefinitely.
We are asking you to ensure the government stops detaining women who have come to this country to seek asylum. Women’s asylum cases can be considered while they live in the community. We are also asking you to ensure that no male staff are employed at Yarl’s Wood detention centre in roles where they come into contact with women, and that allegations of abuse made against staff are properly investigated.
It’s possible to create an asylum process which treats women who have survived rape and torture with dignity and humanity.
They deserve a fair hearing and a chance to rebuild their lives. Thank you.
Please sign Meril's petition.
http://www.change.org/petitions/theresa-may-british-home-secretary-end-the-detention-of-women-who-seek-asylum?share_id=tSmurPgKyp&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
Guest post by Alex.
The situation described below happened in an internet shop on Camden High Street where I work.
On the 7th of November in the evening, a customer came in to use a computer, he could hardly speak English and after a while I discovered he was Polish, being Polish myself, we could easily communicate.
He asked me to help him with benefit registration and told that he lost all his documents and money 2 weeks ago. He ended up being evicted from his potential house due to inability to pay the deposit (by the time we met he managed to organize a copy of his passport from the Polish Embassy). Due to the above, he had been homeless for last 2 weeks with no more than £7 in his pocket. He emigrated from Poland three weeks before, leaving his wife and 3 year old daughter to seek a better paid job so he could send money back to his family. He was 23 years of age, brought up in an orphanage back in Poland.
I advised him to find a shelter/hostel rather than benefits as a first move, which he was doing as advised by random people he had spoken to.
Farah is a regular client of the internet cafe, it is near her office in Camden. I was advised by Farah to call an emergency line for homeless to find out about available places around Camden. After a good 40 min on the phone we managed to get through to a consultant, who gave us a phone number to arrange for a Polish speaking interpreter.
We tried to call the help line several times but it was impossible to get through. Every call took at least 40 min to an hour to go through automatic dial and at the end we still hadn't manage to be put through to a consultant. We have tried calling from a mobile phone as well as phone box but unfortunately situation was the same – no answer. We kept calling until 8.00 pm when as we were warned – lines were closed.
The person we tried to secure a safe night for, gave up and walk away for another homeless night on the street…
From Women's views on the News
Guest post from writer, activist and feminist Louise Pennington.
This is the question currently doing the rounds on social media and in countless columns and articles. There is only one answer to this question:
Yes.
There really is no other way to answer this question, not if you have even a cursory knowledge of history and the legacy of misogyny, colonialism, colonisation and racism.
Bjarne Melgaard’s piece, which features the white editor-in-chief of [bi-annual art and fashion magazine] ‘Garage’, Dasha Zhukova, sitting fully clothed on the body of a Black mannequin, is being defended as “art”. Apparently, it was created as a criticism of gender and racism. Unfortunately, this is not how criticism of gender and racist tropes functions. Criticism requires more than replicating images which are common in mainstream pornography. Using the body of a woman to create an object is neither shocking nor thought-provoking art.
Melgaard’s piece is based on an earlier ‘chair’ by Allen Jones, which featured a white woman in bondage. This piece was itself misogynistic. ‘Art’ using the bodies of women as objects isn’t new; nor is it shocking. It is nothing more than the continual replication of patriarchal constructs of women as not-human. Women’s bodies have always been sites of objectification and sexualisation for centuries. Our bodies have continually been used to debase and dehumanise us.
Bjarne Melgaard’s chair does nothing to invert or question this construction. But, as Karen Ingala Smith makes clear:
“the objectification of white and black women is not the same. Black and white women are rarely treated the same in pornography, depictions of black women are rarely free of racial stereotypes.”
In using a Black mannequin as an object, Melgaard has reproduced racialised stereotypes of hyper-sexualised Black women as seen in pornography, advertising, music videos and the media. Racism is endemic in our culture. In many ways, though, pornography is the only industry in which racism is actively encouraged. This isn’t to suggest that racism doesn’t exist in other industries but that mainstream pornography creates and maintains racism in a way that other industries are legally prohibited from doing.
Without knowing anything about Melgaard, the image is distressing and shocking. Not because it questions our constructions of gender and racism but because it so clearly replicates them without question. What is even more distressing is the defence of Melgaard’s sculpture from within the art community. Leigh Silver at Complex Art and Design suggests the chair only became racist when a “Russian socialite sat on it”, a stance which simply ignores the history of racism. Melgaard, himself, says this:
“Race and sex are intertwined. I think racism is a form of sexuality. It is all about a sexual jealousy and a sexual threat.”
This statement ignores the reality of misogyny and racism in women’s lives. Reducing racism to sexuality ignores the Black women raped for the crime of being born Black. It ignores the babies who died on the slave plantations when their mothers were prevented from caring for them. It ignores the children sold into domestic and sexual slavery now because they are not seen as human. Suggesting race is a form of sexuality erases Black women from their own lives.
Gavin Brown, Melgaard’s New York gallerist, goes one step further and silences the Black women speaking out by suggesting they should focus on something else; a tactic all women know too well:
These Bjarne Melgaard sculptures, based on the Allen Jones originals, exist to destabilize and unhinge our hardened and crusty notions of race and sex and power. These sculptures, made by a self professed ‘homosexual’, expose the latent and residual self hatred in a culture where the inhuman and overpowering presence of violence and catastrophe is imminent. Our tragedy is so evident in our daily experience that Melgaard has nothing left to portray but society in its utter decay. We see this photograph to be extraordinary. We see this debate to be a distraction from the true challenges that face us. We applaud both the sitter and the seated. To fault the sitter, now in the age of the Anthropocene, in the midst of enormous and REAL obscenities that threaten our actual existence, reflects a civilization that is not dying but already dead. Turn your outrage upside down.
The irony of a white man silencing women criticises a racist, sexist sculpture which features a Black mannequin wearing a gag has gone unnoticed by Silver, Melgaard and Brown. A Black body in a sexualised position common in mainstream pornography isn’t questioning the treatment of Black women in our culture. It’s maintaining the same racialised sexism which harms Black women.
On a side note, referring to Dasha Zhukova as “Roman Abromovich’s girlfriend” then you aren’t criticising the misogyny properly. A woman is never a possession of a man, even when they are in a relationship with a billionaire. The image was part of a publicity article for Zhukova’s magazine Garage. She is a business woman who has participated in a photo shoot which is both racist and misogynistic. That should be the focus of the story, not Zhukova’s personal relationships. It is deeply ironic that in the rush to condemn this image as misogynistic, journalists are replicating the same construction of woman as object that they are claiming to challenge.
There is only one answer to the question: Is Bjarne Melgaard ‘s chair racist? And that is yes.
